SUPERIOR INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
LENORA F. CANO, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a trial court must determine if a trade secret privilege is validly asserted before compelling disclosure of trade secrets during discovery.
An insurance company sought certiorari to quash an order compelling its claims adjuster to answer deposition questions. The trial court ordered the ad…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Trade Secret Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Chief Judge.
Superior Insurance Company seeks a writ of certiorari to quash the trial court’s order compelling its claims adjuster to answer deposition questions. We quash the order insofar as it requires the claims adjuster to provide trade secrets without a judicial determination of whether a trade secret privilege is being validly asserted.
Lenora F. Cano has sued her insurance company, Superior, seeking a declaration that her insurance policy provided coverage for an accident involving her son. During a deposition of Superior’s claims adjuster, Superior raised objections and instructed the claims adjuster not to answer. In ruling on Ms. Cano’s motion to compel and Superior’s motion for protective order, the trial court ruled that the claims adjuster must answer all questions. If objections are again raised, the trial court’s order directed the attorneys to certify the objectionable question for the trial court to decide, at a later time, whether the answer should be stricken.
Certiorari should be granted when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causing irreparable harm. Harley Shipbuilding Corp. v. Fast Cats Ferry Serv., LLC., 820 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). Because trade secrets are privileged, “their disclosure creates the potential for irreparable harm.” 820 So. 2d at 448. By ordering the claims adjuster to answer all questions, even those calling for trade secrets, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of law. See Harley Shipbuilding Corp., 820 So. 2d at 448. Therefore, we quash that portion of the order requiring the claims adjuster to answer a question that is objected to on grounds of trade secrets before the trial court determines whether Superior has a valid trade secret privilege to assert.
SALCINES and DAVIS, JJ, Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nussbaumer v. State, 882 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…s Contracting Corp., 805 So. 2d 1091, 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). The entry of an order compelling the disclosure of communications protected by a legal privilege is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Superior Ins. Co. v. Cano, 829 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (trade secrets); Robihaud v. Kennedy, 711 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (attorney-client privilege); Hill v. State, 846 So. 2d 1208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (psychotherapist-patient privilege). THE IMPACT OF SECTION 39.201 With the e…
Authorities Cited
- Harley Shipbuilding Corp. & Howard Harley v. Fast Cats Ferry Serv., LLC., 820 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)